Sounds like a company tailoring its products to its market. This has happened forever, its just that the U.S market is no longer the biggest or most important one.
Or, another possibility, even someone who can do favors.
It's said Pablo Escobar didn't need to arrange those escapes from prison: he didn't have to ask. It was done for him because he would be grateful to his benefactors.
I was making a comment that "market" is a plural word. If it's a single entity involved, it is not a market. Even a discrete or organized set of entities is not a market.
Accomadating, implicitly or explicitly, the Chinese government is not respecting or listening to a market because the Chinese government is not a market. This is a different kind of relationship to "people who buy iPhones" or "Canadians".
They already'captured' so much of the us market that catering to it has sever denimishing returns. Most people already in the ecosystem will keep buying it no matter what Apple does.
I'm China, they stand to gain a lot of new customers by catering to their wishes (or more specifically the wishes of their government)
I mean, it’s still the 2nd largest market. I wasn’t trying to make any claims, just pointing out the US market is indeed the largest market by a large margin.
Doesn't really matter if your entire supply chain is in China. Globalist economic ideologues forget to mention this. You stick your supply chain in a totalitarian state with artificially cheap labor costs, and you pretty much have to do as they say.
Good luck sourcing chips for future military systems.
And an even bigger misunderstanding is thinking that this negates or somehow neutralizes the fact that so much high tech manufacturing takes place in mainland China. I get it - China hasn’t done complex silicon fabrication yet (at least at scale). But the risk here isn’t a Chinese company replacing e.g. Intel and the US Military (stupidly) putting those chips in their hardware. It’s China MITMing the supply chain as it exists today.
but this kind of censorship has occured forever. It was just for the sake of the US, instead of China. To those outside of the US, not much has changed.
Not really. Despots usually have politics to deal with. Not everything is possible.
The companies in question had a massive technological and force advantage over the local populace with free reign when it came to managing dissent with force. Their only political concerns were back in Europe.
Companies have not been big for very long. Stock only dates back 400 years, but try and find 10 giant companies with 100,000 employees from 300 years ago. It’s really better transportation and communication that’s allowed modern giants to be created. With the railroad and telegraph kicking things into high gear.
Wouldn't also a better metric be the size of the corporation proportionate to the size of population?
I'm thinking of the big banking families were equivalents of the modern day corporation in pooled resources and infrastructure, and social dependence. Privately held, sure, so not 100% the same, but it seems like humans end up with similar concentrated power structures, and even breaking them up, we kinda find our way back to the same type of abstractions, just a bit more sophisticated, but with the same fundamental motivations.
Global population has increased ~10x, but Walmart is sitting at 2.3 million employees and Macdonald’s has 1.5 million so picking ~100k as the benchmark seems reasonable.
Some companies in the past held enormously more power than today's corporations. VOC of The Netherlands owned Indonesia and had a mercenary army of over a hundred thousand.
Amen, brother. Corporations are allowed a charter for the public good in return for their privileges. Somehow the human species has lost track of this obvious thing.
I would not be surprised if the original rejection was just a reviewer making a somewhat arbitrary decision. I think it’s nearly impossible that the second one was made without considering China.
Would you be upset if a US protesting app was removed? Do you think a protesting app would be allowed in the US if it was effective? (I'm genuinely asking because i don't think i have ever seen an effective protest app in the US)
the left would push for a censor if the right were (perceived) to be leading the revolution, and the right would do so if the left were trying.
And right now, the right (accidentally?) won, so the left are naturally reacting to anything that might have lead to that victory: namely, social media.
If it was removed for anything other normal violations of an Apps Stores TOS it would be violating several portions of the the First Amendment including freedom of speech, for the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government.[1]
Couldn't they just change the TOS to say something like you can't use apps to evade law enforcement, which they might do under pressure from the police unions?
Maybe it wouldn't be shut down by police unions but what about lawmakers and politicians? So you believe that an app known to be enabling and protecting protests on the level of what's happening in Hong Kong, with regular destruction of property, molotovs, knives to police, etc. would be allowed to stay on the app store? Hong Kong protests seem like a lot more activity than "petitioning the government", closer to revolution i think. I'm not sure even twitter would stay up. I feel like it would take lots of lawyers on your side. Maybe, I guess i'm not convinced yet.
So you believe that an app known to be enabling and protecting protests on the level of what's happening in Hong Kong, with regular destruction of property, molotovs, knives to police, etc. would be allowed to stay on the app store?
Yes, it's called Twitter. It's happened many times before, complete with fire and mayhem.
In the United States, protests are rarely just "the people" because the politicians are also "the people."
A subset of politicians who oversee the police are very often in the front of any protest march. In addition to community leaders, clergy, and other people the police don't want to screw with.
I know there are a few Hong Kong politicians involved in those protests, but not at the level that is typical in the United States.
In spite of the sensationalized and rare incidents that are publicized on the internet, in America politicians = people > police.
By your logic doesn’t Apple already violate the First Amendment by not allowing porno apps? That doesn’t seem to have kept them up at night or caused any significant consequences.
> it would be violating several portions of the the First Amendment including freedom of speech, for the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government.
i am pretty sure the bill of rights is about what the government can’t do, and doesn’t affect private parties like apple...
Public gathering points on scales much larger than any public square could facilitate ought to abide by the principles of the US Constitution, even if, and this is an if since I'm admittedly ignorant to this detail, their behavior is not legally obligated by it.
My line of thought has not changed in 10 years : having one company gatekeeping what apps can be installed on a smart device you own is an aberration that will only lead to more situations like these.
Yes, of course. But the USA hardly needs such things when people can just use whatsapp or Facebook directly to organize. The HK protesters were using apps to solve problems the USA protesters never had.
The Hoa people (Han Chinese ethnic minority in Vietnam) suffered persecution under the socialist government of Vietnam in the 70s. That why many of them escaped as refugees.
Hanja characters which are shared both in the Korean language and also Japanese language are actually quite meaningful. So much so, that persons literate in Japanese and Korean can get the gist of phrases and sentences written in both Mandarin and Cantonese.
Hanja characters are basically pictograms, not phonemic representations, and are quite different from the glyphs that make up the Latin alphabet.
> Hanja characters are basically pictograms, not phonemic representations
This is language-dependent. In Japanese, for example, kanji can be used either for their semantic value ("kun" reading) or for their phonemic value ("on" reading).
For example, the Japanese word "futon" is written as 布団. The first character, "布", has a semantic meaning of "fabric", "spread out", or "disseminate", all of which are unrelated to the native Japanese word "futon". (That is, the word "futon" does not have a Japanese root meaning "fabric".) However, 布 is pronounced in various Chinese dialects as "bù", "buó", or "pu" -- which the Japanese language assimilated as the on reading "fu".
In response to a question I had in response to your post,
> Is Japanese language always/often a mix of kanji and hanja? Are there significant kinds of text that are kanji-only?
my partner, a native Japanese speaker, explained
> Usually mix of kanji, hiragana, and katakana.
> But some words are written only in kanji like “入室禁止” meaning do not enter (this room)
> For the sentences, almost all sentences require hiragana for verbs.
My buddy, a native English speaker fluent in Japanese, responded
> It’s usually a mix.
From which I gather: kanji-only signage and phrasing (which can be "read" by Mandarin or Cantonese literates) is common, but longer constructions involving sentences typically will have hiragana and/or katakana which are phonetic and have little to no meaning for people not literate in Japanese.
Chinese and Japanese. It's fun looking at the google translated approximations, the japanese page especially is a little different concept than the german I think:
> 忖度
> Degree
> Estimate the feelings of others, and give consideration to others
> Missing in English
> There was no English word corresponding directly to “Degree”, and there was a scene explaining the meaning in English to a foreign reporter at the press conference of Yasuhiro Tsunoike. [15] [16] He states that the nuances of "surmise" and "read between the lines" are different, and that the same nuances in Japanese can only be expressed accurately. ALC, which also operates an English translation site, is not a direct translation, thinks about (people) feelings, senses (people) feelings, considers (people) feelings, thinks of (people), the body of the other He proposes an alternative English translation of the words “thinking, thinking, guessing, guessing, reading the air” [17] .
> "Jesusman" is sometimes used as one of the corresponding words for "degree".
EDIT EDIT Is it a coincidence that イエスマン is Japanese for Jesus-Man and is pronounced 'Yes-Man' ?
Well, Apple does have a knack of taking established conventions and technologies and then rebranding them with their Apple logo and marketing fairy dust.
My understanding is if you created your Apple ID in mainland China, this ID is forever associated with servers within China PR's authority regardless of where you go.
Is this a big problem? You managed to escape a repressive regime; creating a new email address and clicking a few buttons on Apple's website seems well within your capabilities at that point.
Does this mean these accounts would be hidden from Five Eyes? I wonder if this also means the CLOUD Act wouldn’t apply to these accounts? Since technically, it’s not Apple hosting iCloud in China but a separate local company.
The 14 eyes (used to be 5 eyes, way back when), and Russia (ex-Soviets) were colluding with even Kerberos back-doors back in the 90s, why do you assume that various nation-states are at odds with helping one-another keep track of the on-line behavior of their respective citizens?
The government intelligence apparatus (apparently apparatii is incorrect both in English and in Latin?) have more in common with each other than they do with "us".
While I understand where you're coming from- I'd look at it slightly differently- Microsoft has a huge cloud business where people access outlook using web. If MS can secure it, apple won't be that far behind. Then again I don't know if apple has ever cared for user security much...
His answer is consistent with what Apple has said about iPhones and iCloud in China in the past [1]. The lack of pressure he's talking about is pressure to implement backdoors or otherwise compromise the end-to-end encryption in their products. Removing the Taiwan emoji or VPN apps from the App Store is a small price to pay if that's still the case.
>Cook said they have never been asked in China by authorities to unlock an iPhone, but added, referring to the U.S., "I have here."
>"And we stood up against that, and said we can't do it," he added. "Our privacy commitment is a worldwide one."
I should also add that it's a good sign for Apple that China's embassy tweeted this out [2]. I've always wondered if or when China would force them to backdoor the iPhone or iMessage to operate there. But it seems like they've come to some sort of equilibrium where they realize that's an Apple core interest and can't push on it. If they're tweeting it out it means there's some limited propaganda value to them (in the same way that Putin gets some propaganda value by providing Snowden asylum) and it makes it unlikely that they would force Apple on this.
Likewise it's also good that Josh Hawley and others are making noise about this [3]. On the surface he's targeting Apple for criticism, but his proposed bill doesn't really affect Apple since only Chinese iCloud data is stored in China, which would comply with his bill [4]. US politicians have mostly ignored this issue until now, it will help Apple by showing the CCP that the US has an interest in this. Perhaps in a trade deal they'll be able to undo the Chinese data localization requirement as well [5].
How would China gain access to their citizen's phones then? There's no way that they don't have some type of ability to get into any single citizen's phone.
I know that they were using exploits via Safari which seemed very sophisticated to monitor Uyghurs en masse.
>How would China gain access to their citizen's phones then? There's no way that they don't have some type of ability to get into any single citizen's phone.
Through literally every other part of the stack from the wireless carriers to applications like WeChat. They don't need an iOS backdoor when they have CCP officials at Tencent's offices. Most people use Android and the police just make them install an app on their smartphones, something they can't do on iOS [1]. The way to access an iOS device is with 0days. I used to see plenty of credits on iOS security updates for Chinese researchers, but China seems to have put a stop to that with the goal of hoarding them [2].
There's no need for China to officially ask Apple for backdoors when the Party can force citizens and tourists to install their app with full access granted[0], and can get Apple to store the keys in China[1] while working with local Chinese state-owned 'partners'[2] which do the Party's bidding without even needing to go through Apple.
The first thing is only possible on Android, not iOS. As far as the iCloud keys, Apple insists that they maintain control of them. And at the end of the day, anyone can just decide to disable iCloud backups and they won't have to worry about it.
>Originally, iCloud data was stored on Apple-controlled servers, with the Cupertino company holding the encryption keys. Apple announced a year ago that this would change to comply with new laws in China, and that data for Chinese iCloud accounts would be moved to a server run by Guizhou-Cloud Big Data (GCBD), a company owned by the provincial government.
>However, I have spoken to Apple today, who confirmed that it still holds the encryption keys, and states categorically that they have not been made available to either GCBD or China Telecom.
According to this report, that Russian law was targeted at Apple [1]. It also says that Apple has told them they'll leave the market, which is pretty credible because Russia is a small market.
This is a Google translation:
>According to a profile official, in summer in informal conversations it was said that the main goal of the bill is Apple, which they are trying to oblige the law to install Russian applications on iPhones and iPads. But the iOS operating system that Apple uses does not at all imply the ability to preinstall third-party applications.
>At one of the meetings, Apple representatives warned that the introduction of such standards would force the company to "revise its business model in Russia, " Vedomosti wrote in the summer. As of September, the company's position has not changed, the official said. “The company then took this position: we will show you the middle finger, your market is a very small segment of our business, its loss is insignificant,” he says. Perhaps the authors of the project were inspired by the example of China, from where, after the adoption of similar rules, no one left, admits The Bell's interlocutor. But Russia is not China, there are no levers of pressure on Apple, he states.
I'm pretty sure he rolls over, before they even ask.
Blocking, unblocking and blocking the protestor app is Apple anticipating what they will gain with the most. And they came to the conclusion that China market access > human rights in Taiwan + bad publicity.
And yeah, the internal note of Tom Cook was full of bullshit, concerning the app. No company is going to explain financial motives to their employees.
Then how this isn't worst? Is self-censorship signalling obedience to the communist regime now doesn't even need "pressure" and is now automatic by default?
I have no problem with Apple if they had chosen to censor at the request of Chinese Government. At least I understand that is part of business in China. And they can remain silent on the issue. ( I do wish they stand up against CCP, but that is another issue )
What irritates me most from Tim Cook's Apple, is that he and Apple now pretends to be good and caring, and yet their actions shows the opposite.
Whenever Tim Cook come on to the stage and said things like our customer loves the Mac, ( Not anymore) And they cares about their customers. ( Nothing in the past few years shows they do until Customers are fed up and leaving ) Many have been crying for years before they listen and get a new design with new keyboard.
Steve doesn't admit it when there is a problem. But he often offers solutions and feedback very quickly, often within a shortened one cycle of product refresh. Magic Mouse, MacBook Air's USB port... etc
And for most part, Steve doesn't tell lies, ( or lies that is external of Apple, anything internal he could be completely making things up to his wishes ). He does put a spin and deceptions into words.
But this is not the first time we caught Tim Cook lying. From the Qualcomm case to the HK Protestor Apps ( Which isn't even used for illegal gathering, but getting away from unlimited use of Made in China's Toxic Tear gas ), to China's censorship.
Yes, like I said he didn't admit the problem publicly, but actually offer a free case to those affected. Not to mention the Antenna gate lost of a few db signal was a problem that mostly affect US Carriers where Tower to Clients ratio are one of the lowest in developed countries.
> Magic Mouse
I cant find the pieces, where he actually admit the Hockey Puck Mouse problem and the general dislike from its customers. Not only do you have the option to use another mouse, which makes the matter not as urgent, he admitted he was working on a new design 6 - 8 months after the hockey puck shipped. And the Next Apple Pro Mouse was great.
The solution to all problem is to admit there is a problem, The new Apple fail at that spectacularly.
> Whenever Tim Cook come on to the stage and said things like our customer loves the Mac, ( Not anymore)
Please do not presume to speak on everyone's behalf. I love the Mac, as do millions of other people; MacBooks have been outselling their competitors, even the first Touch Bar model:
>MacBooks have been outselling their competitors, even the first Touch Bar model:
Apple has on numerous occasions said more than 50% of their Mac sales were to new customers, ( and specially to China ), and yet their active Mac user base did not grown anywhere according to that number. The only conclusion would be there are also a percentage of people leaving the ecosystem.
And the percentage cross a threshold before that admit to their mistake. Yes, those sales number are often a delayed indication of what the market expect.
Not to mention that sales number completely ignores developing an App for the close to 1B Active iPhone users requires a Mac.
( And in the increase in purchase of Mac from Fortunes 500 companies such as Sales Forces and IBM )
I wouldn't hold Steve up as a paragon of truthfulness. I think he preferred to be truthful when possible, but it was a secondary matter. I think he was generally concerned about landing his pitch, and if the truth had to be bent or broken to do that, so be it.
My first Silicon Valley job was at Apple, and my second was at NeXT. I was back at Apple for the introduction of the iMac, and I was at the Apple all-hands meeting where Steve announced the new product to the employees. (I use the word "new" in the loosest sense. The iMac was old technology in a colorful new package.)
I attended with a friend who was, like me, an Apple programmer at the time. I had met Steve a few times and seen his presentations before. I knew what to expect. My friend did not.
My basic impression, as I remember it, was, "thank God Steve is into tech marketing, not politics." He could really work a crowd. I never understood how the world's great demagogues had managed their terrible achievements until I saw what Steve could do with a crowd.
As we were walking out of the auditorium, my friend said to me, shaking his head, "I don't understand it--I believed him! I work on some of that stuff. I knew he was lying, and yet I still believed him!"
I felt like that said it all. I guess I still feel that way.
I think a lot of people on this topic are misapplying their western ideas about governance where it doesn't make sense.
One-party states are very effective at implementing top-down rule, and pretty much none of them recognize a right to petition government for a redress of grievances. There's a completely different business environment when the government rule is no longer subject to debate. Corporations in the west have huge power to make political and social change, but this concept doesn't translate.
Apple is a capable enough company that they already understand the legal, social, and political environment they are subject to when doing business in China. Beijing doesn't have to 'pressure' Apple to make changes. Apple already knows what they can and can't do.
Global trade is an essential influence for the protection of human rights, but it's the definitely the long game. I think we'd be worse off as a world if we swing back towards isolationism again. An emoji is not the hill to die on here.
John Gruber might be technically brilliant but to be politically informed is a whole different matter. His pieces on those issues over the last few months "reek of" nativity, to use his own last sentence. Sure, everybody is entitled to their opinions but I'm not sure if it makes sense for him to be so loud and self-assured on these things before actually getting a solid grasp of them.
His argument that Taiwanese flag has been OK to the Chinese regime because it's similar to the Hongkongnese flag is just plainly nonsense, if one has the least bit of awareness of Chinese news. Sure, HK and Macau have their own flags, but it is based on the understanding that ultimately they're "part of China". The Taiwanese use of their flag intends to signify that they are a completely independent political entity. You cannot simply claim they're the same thing.
In fact, there have been countless incidents of international brands subject to the wrath of Chinese consumers (not really the regime) just because their wording/map etc. might be interpreted as supporting Taiwan independence. I'm not saying it is good for the populace to be this sensitive and nationalistic, but it is just the fact at this moment. I'm sure that when Apple decided to remove the flag, it's more of a "careful not to have any reason to be subject to a potential boycott" decision, i.e. a commercial one, which is natural to all profit-driven companies.
123 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21210678
So Cook means that Apple did self-censorship in favor of China at their willing? That sounds even worse.
It's said Pablo Escobar didn't need to arrange those escapes from prison: he didn't have to ask. It was done for him because he would be grateful to his benefactors.
Accomadating, implicitly or explicitly, the Chinese government is not respecting or listening to a market because the Chinese government is not a market. This is a different kind of relationship to "people who buy iPhones" or "Canadians".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_mar...
They already'captured' so much of the us market that catering to it has sever denimishing returns. Most people already in the ecosystem will keep buying it no matter what Apple does.
I'm China, they stand to gain a lot of new customers by catering to their wishes (or more specifically the wishes of their government)
Good luck sourcing chips for future military systems.
There's still comparatively little high-tech silicon fabrication in mainland China.
Apple and the Americans that work for it would be so much richer if the majority of its revenue (international vs US) just disappeared.
We don't have to treat them as a force of nature.
any petty despot enjoys the same level of power
The companies in question had a massive technological and force advantage over the local populace with free reign when it came to managing dissent with force. Their only political concerns were back in Europe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company
Some argue that some live in borderline corporatocracies now, but the 17th century was a completely different ball game.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-018-3894-2
In the past, you would get parts of a movie, titles, jokes or whatever censored in some part of the world, and not elsewhere.
Now to avoid upsetting the CCP companies decide to not use potentially offensive content all over the world.
It's terrifying.
This. Effing Apple.
Love their products but next time I'll at least try to reconsider.
Twitter and Facebook serve protesters very well
And right now, the right (accidentally?) won, so the left are naturally reacting to anything that might have lead to that victory: namely, social media.
Yes, it would be allowed in the US.
If it was removed for anything other normal violations of an Apps Stores TOS it would be violating several portions of the the First Amendment including freedom of speech, for the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#F...
Yes, it's called Twitter. It's happened many times before, complete with fire and mayhem.
In the United States, protests are rarely just "the people" because the politicians are also "the people."
A subset of politicians who oversee the police are very often in the front of any protest march. In addition to community leaders, clergy, and other people the police don't want to screw with.
I know there are a few Hong Kong politicians involved in those protests, but not at the level that is typical in the United States.
In spite of the sensationalized and rare incidents that are publicized on the internet, in America politicians = people > police.
i am pretty sure the bill of rights is about what the government can’t do, and doesn’t affect private parties like apple...
and I am still upset about it.
My line of thought has not changed in 10 years : having one company gatekeeping what apps can be installed on a smart device you own is an aberration that will only lead to more situations like these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoa_people
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorauseilender_Gehorsam
English borrowed kowtow to use in such context, though it's a little broader, but it's mostly fallen out of favour.
Hanja characters which are shared both in the Korean language and also Japanese language are actually quite meaningful. So much so, that persons literate in Japanese and Korean can get the gist of phrases and sentences written in both Mandarin and Cantonese.
Hanja characters are basically pictograms, not phonemic representations, and are quite different from the glyphs that make up the Latin alphabet.
This is language-dependent. In Japanese, for example, kanji can be used either for their semantic value ("kun" reading) or for their phonemic value ("on" reading).
For example, the Japanese word "futon" is written as 布団. The first character, "布", has a semantic meaning of "fabric", "spread out", or "disseminate", all of which are unrelated to the native Japanese word "futon". (That is, the word "futon" does not have a Japanese root meaning "fabric".) However, 布 is pronounced in various Chinese dialects as "bù", "buó", or "pu" -- which the Japanese language assimilated as the on reading "fu".
> Is Japanese language always/often a mix of kanji and hanja? Are there significant kinds of text that are kanji-only?
my partner, a native Japanese speaker, explained
> Usually mix of kanji, hiragana, and katakana.
> But some words are written only in kanji like “入室禁止” meaning do not enter (this room)
> For the sentences, almost all sentences require hiragana for verbs.
My buddy, a native English speaker fluent in Japanese, responded
> It’s usually a mix.
From which I gather: kanji-only signage and phrasing (which can be "read" by Mandarin or Cantonese literates) is common, but longer constructions involving sentences typically will have hiragana and/or katakana which are phonetic and have little to no meaning for people not literate in Japanese.
> 忖度 > Degree > Estimate the feelings of others, and give consideration to others > Missing in English
> There was no English word corresponding directly to “Degree”, and there was a scene explaining the meaning in English to a foreign reporter at the press conference of Yasuhiro Tsunoike. [15] [16] He states that the nuances of "surmise" and "read between the lines" are different, and that the same nuances in Japanese can only be expressed accurately. ALC, which also operates an English translation site, is not a direct translation, thinks about (people) feelings, senses (people) feelings, considers (people) feelings, thinks of (people), the body of the other He proposes an alternative English translation of the words “thinking, thinking, guessing, guessing, reading the air” [17] .
> "Jesusman" is sometimes used as one of the corresponding words for "degree".
EDIT EDIT Is it a coincidence that イエスマン is Japanese for Jesus-Man and is pronounced 'Yes-Man' ?
"You're holding it wrong", "Our butterfly keyboards are perfectly fine", "The iOS update does not slow down our older models"...
Other companies screw up, cheat and sometimes even lie, but Apple and a section of its fanboys repeatedly gaslight - even on small faults.
Well, Apple does have a knack of taking established conventions and technologies and then rebranding them with their Apple logo and marketing fairy dust.
As your point states, it's quite effective xD
China manufactures the physical chips and has a bad reputation for forcing companies to add backdoors.
The government intelligence apparatus (apparently apparatii is incorrect both in English and in Latin?) have more in common with each other than they do with "us".
Anyway, I didn't downvote...
[1] https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e02-band-in-china [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorauseilender_Gehorsam
>Cook said they have never been asked in China by authorities to unlock an iPhone, but added, referring to the U.S., "I have here."
>"And we stood up against that, and said we can't do it," he added. "Our privacy commitment is a worldwide one."
I should also add that it's a good sign for Apple that China's embassy tweeted this out [2]. I've always wondered if or when China would force them to backdoor the iPhone or iMessage to operate there. But it seems like they've come to some sort of equilibrium where they realize that's an Apple core interest and can't push on it. If they're tweeting it out it means there's some limited propaganda value to them (in the same way that Putin gets some propaganda value by providing Snowden asylum) and it makes it unlikely that they would force Apple on this.
Likewise it's also good that Josh Hawley and others are making noise about this [3]. On the surface he's targeting Apple for criticism, but his proposed bill doesn't really affect Apple since only Chinese iCloud data is stored in China, which would comply with his bill [4]. US politicians have mostly ignored this issue until now, it will help Apple by showing the CCP that the US has an interest in this. Perhaps in a trade deal they'll be able to undo the Chinese data localization requirement as well [5].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20904857
[2] https://twitter.com/ChineseEmbinUS/status/119754656621681459...
[3] https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1196412815608864771
[4] https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Na...
[5] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-floats-cloud-concession-t...
I know that they were using exploits via Safari which seemed very sophisticated to monitor Uyghurs en masse.
Through literally every other part of the stack from the wireless carriers to applications like WeChat. They don't need an iOS backdoor when they have CCP officials at Tencent's offices. Most people use Android and the police just make them install an app on their smartphones, something they can't do on iOS [1]. The way to access an iOS device is with 0days. I used to see plenty of credits on iOS security updates for Chinese researchers, but China seems to have put a stop to that with the goal of hoarding them [2].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/technology/china-xinjiang...
[2] https://www.cyberscoop.com/pwn2own-chinese-researchers-360-t...
[0] https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/07/22/web-cleansing-chinas-x...
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-forces-tourists-instal...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/24/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-...
[2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/07/18/chinese-icloud-da...
>Originally, iCloud data was stored on Apple-controlled servers, with the Cupertino company holding the encryption keys. Apple announced a year ago that this would change to comply with new laws in China, and that data for Chinese iCloud accounts would be moved to a server run by Guizhou-Cloud Big Data (GCBD), a company owned by the provincial government.
>However, I have spoken to Apple today, who confirmed that it still holds the encryption keys, and states categorically that they have not been made available to either GCBD or China Telecom.
https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/18/chinese-icloud-data-china-tel...
Russia recently passed a law that all gadgets sold in Russia would need Russian developed software. I really wonder how that will affect Apple.
This is a Google translation:
>According to a profile official, in summer in informal conversations it was said that the main goal of the bill is Apple, which they are trying to oblige the law to install Russian applications on iPhones and iPads. But the iOS operating system that Apple uses does not at all imply the ability to preinstall third-party applications.
>At one of the meetings, Apple representatives warned that the introduction of such standards would force the company to "revise its business model in Russia, " Vedomosti wrote in the summer. As of September, the company's position has not changed, the official said. “The company then took this position: we will show you the middle finger, your market is a very small segment of our business, its loss is insignificant,” he says. Perhaps the authors of the project were inspired by the example of China, from where, after the adoption of similar rules, no one left, admits The Bell's interlocutor. But Russia is not China, there are no levers of pressure on Apple, he states.
[1] https://thebell.io/zakon-protiv-apple-novye-ogranicheniya-mo...
Forcing out all outside software allows them to ensure that every single device comes from the factory with backdoors preinstalled.
GDP less than Italy / Canada, consumers poorer than Chinese.
It certainly won't happen overnight, but I see a checkmate forming, with no realistic way out.
Even if he's telling the truth, he has lost my trust. I have no proof of him speaking his mind, ever.
Like this, were he is used by Trump in the most publicly way possible:
https://youtu.be/75-aFisygmA
I'm pretty sure he rolls over, before they even ask.
Blocking, unblocking and blocking the protestor app is Apple anticipating what they will gain with the most. And they came to the conclusion that China market access > human rights in Taiwan + bad publicity.
And yeah, the internal note of Tom Cook was full of bullshit, concerning the app. No company is going to explain financial motives to their employees.
uh what?
I suspect most people understood
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What irritates me most from Tim Cook's Apple, is that he and Apple now pretends to be good and caring, and yet their actions shows the opposite.
Whenever Tim Cook come on to the stage and said things like our customer loves the Mac, ( Not anymore) And they cares about their customers. ( Nothing in the past few years shows they do until Customers are fed up and leaving ) Many have been crying for years before they listen and get a new design with new keyboard.
Steve doesn't admit it when there is a problem. But he often offers solutions and feedback very quickly, often within a shortened one cycle of product refresh. Magic Mouse, MacBook Air's USB port... etc
And for most part, Steve doesn't tell lies, ( or lies that is external of Apple, anything internal he could be completely making things up to his wishes ). He does put a spin and deceptions into words.
But this is not the first time we caught Tim Cook lying. From the Qualcomm case to the HK Protestor Apps ( Which isn't even used for illegal gathering, but getting away from unlimited use of Made in China's Toxic Tear gas ), to China's censorship.
I agree with Gruber, this is just cowardice.
"You're holding it wrong"
> Magic Mouse
Well, the infamous Hockey Puck Mouse stuck around for two years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_USB_Mouse
> And for most part, Steve doesn't tell lies
It appears history has been kind to him…
Yes, like I said he didn't admit the problem publicly, but actually offer a free case to those affected. Not to mention the Antenna gate lost of a few db signal was a problem that mostly affect US Carriers where Tower to Clients ratio are one of the lowest in developed countries.
> Magic Mouse
I cant find the pieces, where he actually admit the Hockey Puck Mouse problem and the general dislike from its customers. Not only do you have the option to use another mouse, which makes the matter not as urgent, he admitted he was working on a new design 6 - 8 months after the hockey puck shipped. And the Next Apple Pro Mouse was great.
The solution to all problem is to admit there is a problem, The new Apple fail at that spectacularly.
Please do not presume to speak on everyone's behalf. I love the Mac, as do millions of other people; MacBooks have been outselling their competitors, even the first Touch Bar model:
https://fortune.com/2016/11/09/apple-macbook-pro-sales/
Disbelieve it, downvote it, but the naysayers are a vocal minority, and Apple can see that in their numbers.
Back to the topic though, all this kowtowing of Western companies to China is definitely depressing.
Apple has on numerous occasions said more than 50% of their Mac sales were to new customers, ( and specially to China ), and yet their active Mac user base did not grown anywhere according to that number. The only conclusion would be there are also a percentage of people leaving the ecosystem.
And the percentage cross a threshold before that admit to their mistake. Yes, those sales number are often a delayed indication of what the market expect.
Not to mention that sales number completely ignores developing an App for the close to 1B Active iPhone users requires a Mac. ( And in the increase in purchase of Mac from Fortunes 500 companies such as Sales Forces and IBM )
Source for that?
My first Silicon Valley job was at Apple, and my second was at NeXT. I was back at Apple for the introduction of the iMac, and I was at the Apple all-hands meeting where Steve announced the new product to the employees. (I use the word "new" in the loosest sense. The iMac was old technology in a colorful new package.)
I attended with a friend who was, like me, an Apple programmer at the time. I had met Steve a few times and seen his presentations before. I knew what to expect. My friend did not.
My basic impression, as I remember it, was, "thank God Steve is into tech marketing, not politics." He could really work a crowd. I never understood how the world's great demagogues had managed their terrible achievements until I saw what Steve could do with a crowd.
As we were walking out of the auditorium, my friend said to me, shaking his head, "I don't understand it--I believed him! I work on some of that stuff. I knew he was lying, and yet I still believed him!"
I felt like that said it all. I guess I still feel that way.
Duplicitous cowards.
One-party states are very effective at implementing top-down rule, and pretty much none of them recognize a right to petition government for a redress of grievances. There's a completely different business environment when the government rule is no longer subject to debate. Corporations in the west have huge power to make political and social change, but this concept doesn't translate.
Apple is a capable enough company that they already understand the legal, social, and political environment they are subject to when doing business in China. Beijing doesn't have to 'pressure' Apple to make changes. Apple already knows what they can and can't do.
Global trade is an essential influence for the protection of human rights, but it's the definitely the long game. I think we'd be worse off as a world if we swing back towards isolationism again. An emoji is not the hill to die on here.
His argument that Taiwanese flag has been OK to the Chinese regime because it's similar to the Hongkongnese flag is just plainly nonsense, if one has the least bit of awareness of Chinese news. Sure, HK and Macau have their own flags, but it is based on the understanding that ultimately they're "part of China". The Taiwanese use of their flag intends to signify that they are a completely independent political entity. You cannot simply claim they're the same thing.
In fact, there have been countless incidents of international brands subject to the wrath of Chinese consumers (not really the regime) just because their wording/map etc. might be interpreted as supporting Taiwan independence. I'm not saying it is good for the populace to be this sensitive and nationalistic, but it is just the fact at this moment. I'm sure that when Apple decided to remove the flag, it's more of a "careful not to have any reason to be subject to a potential boycott" decision, i.e. a commercial one, which is natural to all profit-driven companies.